University Building Named After Packers Draws Protest

[Alvino]

<span style=""font-size:">Packer is a religious leader, and WSU is a state school, raising the First Amendment issue of separation between church and state.</span>

This maybe should have said that there is no good reason, and Boyd K Packer has little relevant merit, to give such an institution his name. Since there isn't much merit apart from his religious functions, one could argue his name is being selected for religious reasons, which wouldn't be appropriate.

Weber State is a university, and Packer has been critical of intellectuals, stating in 1993 that the three greatest threats to his church were "homosexuals, feminists, and intellectuals."

I don't know how you guys would defend Packer against this, but this seems reason enough to reject his name for a family institution which will probably deal with same-sex couples and non-standard relationships at an increasing rate. Also, a university naming an institution after someone who has such an attitude towards intellectuals is enough reason to reject his name as well.

They really couldn't find a better candidate to name their institution after?

[jwhitlock]

This maybe should have said that there is no good reason, and Boyd K Packer has little relevant merit, to give such an institution his name. Since there isn't much merit apart from his religious functions, one could argue his name is being selected for religious reasons, which wouldn't be appropriate.

I don't know how you guys would defend Packer against this, but this seems reason enough to reject his name for a family institution which will probably deal with same-sex couples and non-standard relationships at an increasing rate. Also, a university naming an institution after someone who has such an attitude towards intellectuals is enough reason to reject his name as well.

They really couldn't find a better candidate to name their institution after?

All good examples of why buying into the arguments of those who hate President Packer is bound to lead to some false conclusions.

[Alvino]

All good examples of why buying into the arguments of those who hate President Packer is bound to lead to some false conclusions.

If you don't want others to take your positions as a sign of 'hate', don't do so with others. Now, care to address what I said properly?

[The Nehor]

Why can't we all learn to agree to disagree with each other on things without accusations of bigotry?

Because I want to add to the "emotional pain" these saps are enduring. Satan my master commands me to do so.

[jwhitlock]

If you don't want others to take your positions as a sign of 'hate', don't do so with others. Now, care to address what I said properly?

Did you read the article? These people hate President Packer. Their rationalizations for opposing him amounted to nothing less that plain bigotry. As such, they're really not worthy of much response beyond that.

You seem to think, from your little self-righteous comment here, that it isn't appropriate to label bigotry for what it is. Too bad.

In any case, your comments contained several invalid assumptions. First invalid assumption was that President Packer had little relevant merit to the center. False, so the rest of your argument falls apart. Second invalid assumption was that supporters of the traditional family are irrelevant, and so should not be connected with a center dealing with families. Instead, from your viewpoint, we should evidently look for someone who supports the wholesale redefinition of family and marriage to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Third false assumption is that President Packer somehow has a bad attitude toward all intellectuals. Not only is that untenable, it's actually quite inane, given the number of intellectuals that are faithful Latter-day Saints who don't feel oppressed at all by President Packer.

Pretty specious arguments on the whole.

[Alvino]

Did you read the article? These people hate President Packer. Their rationalizations for opposing him amounted to nothing less that plain bigotry. As such, they're really not worthy of much response beyond that.

You seem to think, from your little self-righteous comment here, that it isn't appropriate to label bigotry for what it is. Too bad.

Still no reason.

In any case, your comments contained several invalid assumptions.

You mean 'false', not invalid.

First invalid assumption was that President Packer had little relevant merit to the center. False, so the rest of your argument falls apart.

You make an 'invalid' assumption here: What you just said is false. Rest my case. Your argument fails.

How'bout that for a thoughtful response, huh?

Second invalid assumption was that supporters of the traditional family are irrelevant, and so should not be connected with a center dealing with families.

I didn't assume such a thing. There will be more standard families than non-standard. That's OK. What I'm saying is that it is inappropriate for a family center from a state institution to be named after someone who is so vocal in rejecting the type of families the institution will deal with. That would be like naming a state program to help the homeless the "Ronald Reagan Program".

Instead, from your viewpoint, we should evidently look for someone who supports the wholesale redefinition of family and marriage to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

No, just someone who better represents the idea of helping those whom your institution is going to be helping. Not rocket science here, my friend.

Third false assumption is that President Packer somehow has a bad attitude toward all intellectuals. Not only is that untenable, it's actually quite inane, given the number of intellectuals that are faithful Latter-day Saints who don't feel oppressed at all by President Packer.

Did you read the quote? Because it's pretty clear the last thing he is doing is praising hard intellectual work or testing challenging ideas with the intellect, something I would presume is a must for someone whose name will be honored by a state educational institution.

[jwhitlock]

Still no reason.

Glad to hear that you don't think bigotry is hateful. Good luck with that.

You mean 'false', not invalid.

No, I meant invalid. I could have also said unsupported assertion.

You make an 'invalid' assumption here: What you just said is false. Rest my case. Your argument fails.

How'bout that for a thoughtful response, huh?

About on par with the arguments you were making in the first place.

I didn't assume such a thing. There will be more standard families than non-standard. That's OK. What I'm saying is that it is inappropriate for a family center from a state institution to be named after someone who is so vocal in rejecting the type of families the institution will deal with. That would be like naming a state program to help the homeless the "Ronald Reagan Program".

Which amounts to saying that although we all pay taxes, people with religious viewpoints shouldn't be allowed a voice or influence in public institutions. That goes back to my original post that the Stonewall Democrats basically want to treat those with religious viewpoints as second class citizens and deny them a voice in the public arena.

No, just someone who better represents the idea of helping those whom your institution is going to be helping. Not rocket science here, my friend.

Or, since we're talking about the Stonewall Democrats here, those who want to politicize the definition of "family" to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Perhaps the center wants to actually strengthen families based on tried and true principles, rather than rejecting those principles and engaging in social experimentation, such as "openness" in marriage.

Did you read the quote? Because it's pretty clear the last thing he is doing is praising hard intellectual work or testing challenging ideas with the intellect, something I would presume is a must for someone whose name will be honored by a state educational institution.

Evidently you think all intellectuals must be validated and respected, just because they are... well... "intellectuals". Perhaps you should read President Packer's comments in context before you contend he is dismissing intellections as a category.

[rpn]

Nothing I've read suggests Elder Packer in any way sought this, or was even asked for his approval. The University's desire to use his name suggests that their funding needed a boost from the conservative side (or maybe that its PR people are totally clueless?). And that makes me wonder if donors weren't donating already because they thought that a family center at Weber State was not going to support traditional families?

I suppose if the controversy improves its fundraising position, anything else won't matter. But it strikes me as unlikely that Elder Packer would allow his name to be attached to a group, if it were not fully supporting traditional families (which is not to be read as refusing to support non-traditional families --- they aren't mutually exclusive.)

[CV75]

1) I think it is wrong to name any public building after a living person.

2) And the Center's attempt to use his name to improve fund raising in my view is abhorrent.

3) But whichever group receives these petitions should ask those who signed it if they have read or personally seen in their entirety all the GC talks he has give over the last seven years. I've paid some attention to the outcries that come after every talk. And because of that I pay closer than usual attention to his talks. And he doesn't say what the internet lights up to report he says. The protest is a visceral misinterpretation because they don't like him personally, maybe even fear him as Pres of the 12, not truly because of what he says. So every petition signer who hasn't actually read or hear his works, should be ignored.

1) The Center isn't a building.

2) I don't think you can correctly assert this any more than you can assert that the Center is a building.

3) I see this more as an opportunity to educate, not to ignore.

[Scott Lloyd]

As there seems to be a bit of confusion about the new Packer center, by way of background I herewith link to the Deseret News article I wrote reporting the occasion last month when it was officially named.

Edited to add:

Here's my Church News story on the same topic.

As noted in my stories, President Packer himself said very little on this occasion. But the following quote from him, cited by his son, Elder Allen F. Packer of the Seventy, perhaps gives a glimpse into why he might merit having an academic center that focuses on strengthening families named after him:

“Regardless of what your transcript of credit may say, one part of your education may have been neglected, leaving you developed only to a grade-school level. Now that you are graduating, you would do well to concentrate on those things that are scarcely touched on in universities in our day. For instance, you who have studied chemistry can mix a complicated formula without blowing up the chemistry lab, but have you learned to blend the ingredients of a happy marriage without having it blow up in your face? You who have studied language can now construct a proper sentence and convey even the finest shades of meaning. But will you have the ability to use that to sell unwitting customers something that they neither need nor can afford, or will you promise without quite saying so great returns on investments that are actually worthless? You who have studied accounting can keep complicated ledgers of principles of interest and increase, but do you intend to pay back your student loan?”

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2) And the Center's attempt to use his name to improve fund raising in my view is abhorrent.

Why abhorrent? This has been SOP among academic institutions for a long, long time. Usually the building or other facility is named for the person who donates the most money. In this case, apparently, major donors desired that the center be named for the Packers as a way to honor a couple who are deeply admired by many people.

Obviously, the Packer's don't object, and they regard it as a worthy cause. Where's the beef?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Nothing I've read suggests Elder Packer in any way sought this, or was even asked for his approval.

I don't know what led up to the naming of the center after the Packers.

But I was there at Weber State last month at the occasion where the center was officially named. President and Sister Packer were both there, as were members of the extended family. Two sons participated in the program, one appearing in a specially produced video shown for the occasion and the other (Elder Allen F. Packer of the Seventy) giving a speech.

It was obvious President Packer felt honored and gave his full approval to the action to name the center after him and his wife. (See my news stories linked to above.)

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

All I can say is thank goodness it's not the performing arts center or life sciences building.

[thesometimesaint]

Cinepro:

As BYU has a performing acts center and teaches evolution I don't see where it would be a problem.

[Rivers]

I am curious to know why the Packers were chosen in the first place.

[Kenngo1969]

"It causes me emotional pain", well golly gee Ms. Molly, how many things in this world don't cause you emotional pain? When I hear these types of comments my eyes always begin to roll. Why should I care that my life style, my choices cause you personal pain. Should all things that cause anyone personal pain not be allowed? This is just such an egotistical position. Grow up and realize that life is full of things that will cause you emotional pain and it will never stop until you realize that the decisions of others are not "personal" and don't really affect you directly; there is no need to be bothered, concerned or worried.

Some people are masochists. Ooooooh, yeah! Hurts sooooooo good!

[Daniel2]

http://m.standard.net/standardex/pm_109839/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=jrzgGrUW

Those protesting this are ridiculous and petty. Especially since Boyd Packer's actions have clearly contributed to more than "nothing but religion"! (I know without a doubt he's done much to contribute to many leaving it! ;-) )

Daniel2

Edited June 4, 2013 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

Because I want to add to the "emotional pain" these saps are enduring. Satan my master commands me to do so.

And since these people are masochists, well, where there are masochists, there has to be at least one sadist! Thanks for showing up, Nehor!

[Kenngo1969]

Those protesting this are ridiculous and petty. Especially since Boyd Packer's actions have clearly contributed to more than "nothing but religion"! (I know without a doubt he's done much to contribute to many leaving it! ;-) )

Daniel2

Hey, somebody's gotta separate the wheat from the chaff!

[The Nehor]

And since these people are masochists, well, where there are masochists, there has to be at least one sadist! Thanks for showing up, Nehor!

No, you misunderstand me. If I was a true sadist then on encountering a masochist I would just smile, fold my arms, and say cruelly, "I will not hurt you."

[Daniel2]

Hey, somebody's gotta separate the wheat from the chaff!

I completely agree!!! :-D

Daniel

[Kenngo1969]

I completely agree!!! :-D

Daniel

That wasn't meant as a slight. I'm glad you took it in the spirit in which it was intended. We may have our disagreements, but I wish you well.

[cinepro]

Cinepro:

As BYU has a performing acts center and teaches evolution I don't see where it would be a problem.

When BYU names a life sciences building after Elder Packer, Joseph Fielding Smith, or Elder McConkie, let me know.

[Damien the Leper]

Really?!? Come on! I'm not the biggest fan of Packer but this is just ridiculous. There is no way in hell I would sign that petition. The LGBT community needs to remove their heads from their anuses on this one. Any reason to complain seems to be a good motivator. This is exactly how I feel:

[thesometimesaint]

When BYU names a life sciences building after Elder Packer, Joseph Fielding Smith, or Elder McConkie, let me know.

It is a bit more complex than just naming a building after them. http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/1911EvolControversy.html

And http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=11583